liam76:Revek: Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs. I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.

Neither do I.

You are getting called out as a liar, or too stupid to find out what you quialify for. Something a random guy with no kid at stake could find out in a couple minutes.

I'm not a liar asshole I haven't filled out one of those forms in 4 years but at the time I didn't qualify for shiat. Whether I do now doesn't matter my kid is doing great. I get help from other private citizens. I know what I'm talking about while dipshiats like you armchair quarterback me and call me a bad parent for rejecting the minority driven social programs. Spent 3 days in the hospital last year all the while a very nice lady tried to find some government program that would help me with my medical problems. She didn't find anything and it was her job. Call me a liar if it makes you feel better but I'm not a fart sucking asshole from san francisco or wherever your from. Your opinion isn't going to matter for anything. They won't change my status with Arkansas DHS they won't get me anything. You make bad points and call them right. You haven't lived my life and you haven't been told you don't qualify for this or that reason. I paid for tefra for a year. All the time I used that card for my son I was getting bills from places where they said that tefra wasn't paying for this or that reason. Unless you've lived it you don't know. Some random guy made a shiatload of assumptions from 3000 miles away and got it wrong and you agreed with him.

Revek:Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles. Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages. All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about. Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.

Revek:Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles. Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages.

Seems to me, those with the biggest advantages are the wealthy. The people who reaped the most benefits of one of the least restrictive markets in the history of this country. The ones that set up a financial system that was bound to fail, simply so they could bet against it and profit greatly from the screwing of the middle and lower classes. From my point of view, the elite rich are the only winners in a libertarian society, and the middle and lower class that buy into that same ethos are simply believing in a dream that doesn't exist. The only thing I have seen the wealthy do with their financial gains, is invest it in politicians who will let them keep making windfalls to the detriment of the rest of the country.

ciberido:No. And your troll-fu is weak. You want to concern-troll, learn to do it better.

So I'll add "concern troll" to the list of terms you don't seem to understand.

Take a stab at answering the question or not. Don't waste my time.

OK, then. I'll assume you are asking how non-rich people will be able to get ahead in an anarcho-capitalist world. They'll use their bootstraps to become the local warlord 5 minutes after such a world magically came into existence, crushing those that oppose them regardless of prior income level. Either that or they'll be killed or enslaved by that guy.

That's the difficulty in asking someone a vague question while implying that they believe in an extremist philosophy that they have already called stupid.

Revek:Some random guy made a shiatload of assumptions from 3000 miles away and got it wrong and you agreed with him.

And by shiatload of assumptions you mean posted data directly from the appropriate government agencies.

So you come in here attempting to use your personal anecdote as a bludgeon, and you then throw a hissy fit when someone posts information that could conceivably help you out. You give the whole "you haven't lived my life" line in your tantrum, but you don't seem to realize that when you decry others for getting assistance that you haven't lived their lives either. You make blanket assumptions about people who receive aid, but demand that you are a special flower and we all have to walk a mile in your shoes before we are even allowed to comment on your story. While lecturing about personal responsibility, you are goofing off during work hours while simultaneously complaining about your low income.

And you actually wonder why people have such a low opinion of self described libertarians? You have provided a perfect example of why people who have listened to libertarians often conclude they are douchebags.

I've picked two representative posts to demonstrate the ignorance of farkers in general when it comes to how a libertarian or voluntary society would function. The idea that there would be no standards, no safety, no roads, no security, etc and so forth is simply absurd.

Khellendros:Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive. You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses? You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country? You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land? Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations? Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet? You defend your own land with your own army? You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards? You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service? You've never called the police for anything? Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government. I salute you, citizen. You're a beacon to all of us.

It's funny how someone claims libertarians are hypocrites because of something government has taken a monopoly on. None of those things needs to be a government monopoly. In fact it is the limited ability of person making the charge to think about things beyond accepting the way he knows them. It's also his ignorance of history and where the things as he knows them came from originally. Government is force. It is someone or some group forcing what they think is a good idea on to everyone else. Government is usually a late comer.

For instance, in my profile I have an image from Ford Motor Company selling safety prior to government take over. It's not unique. Many automakers did similar things, to greater and smaller degrees. Government FMVSS standards were copies of prior SAE standards. The way statists think, there was no improvement in safety until government took over after Nader's book. Which is of course entirely false and based in ignorance. But government likes to make the story work that way.

Furthermore, it's sad that government has taken monopoly over so much in our lives, but it does not make a libertarian a hypocrite because he has no other choice but to use the services he's forced to pay for or else and the things which if he wants to use he has no choice but to use those the government has control over. Feel free to break government monopolies and government licensed cartels to allow free competition and then see if libertarians act in a hypocritical way. Until then, retire this nonsense.

Also, if we could say reduce the government to the manager of roads, that would be cheered by most libertarians. Some hard core wouldn't be satisfied, but it would be a vast improvement. Better yet to reduce government to another company in a free voluntary market competing for customers. Somehow I don't think they could manage not to go bankrupt as even with the monopoly on legal violence to simply take from people they can't seem to live within their means.

Engineering standards started out as private standards. Many still are. Sure it is voluntary to comply with these standards unlike the 'or else' of those the government now controls, but if a product doesn't pass those UL, ISO, ANSI, SAE, etc and so forth standards and someone gets hurt guess who is going to have a very difficult time proving their product was safe to use? Furthermore, government often ignores the engineering standards itself puts into law or distorts them for the benefit of itself and its friends. For instance, take the MUTCD (which started from the AASHO, a private non-government group). This standard was altered to make red light cameras more profitable and is routinely ignored by government in favor of traffic ticket revenue. The thing is, it is often incorporated into the vehicle code.

This is just one of countless organizations that were created in voluntary society to make for safe buildings, products, and so on and so forth.

The reason voluntary libertarian society can work is because it brought about the good things people now credit government for. That's what government does, takes things over and demands credit for the work of others.

cubic_spleen:GoldSpider: bopis: Liberal thinking:Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.

With genuine libertarians, perhaps. The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.

If you put 10 libertarians in a room, you'd get 11 different definitions of "genuine libertarian".

ghettodwarf:The ones that set up a financial system that was bound to fail, simply so they could bet against it and profit greatly from the screwing of the middle and lower classes.

So you're upset that the wealthy elite control government and using that control of government ended up controlling the money? Go government, keeping the serfs and slaves in their place for the last six thousand years.

cubic_spleen:The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.

We are already living in modern feudalism. It's more appropriately called corporatism and actually it's worse than the dark age kind in many respects. The mechanisms just aren't as overt. They are done with financial control and scientific social manipulation and so on, but the end result, the effective result when it comes to money and power and living in luxury off the labor of others is everything medieval feudalism was and more. These days what we are seeing is the shift to the overt. Where it isn't hidden anymore. Both team D and team R cheer it forward.

leadmetal:It's funny how someone claims libertarians are hypocrites because of something government has taken a monopoly on. None of those things needs to be a government monopoly. In fact it is the limited ability of person making the charge to think about things beyond accepting the way he knows them. It's also his ignorance of history and where the things as he knows them came from originally.

Truly the Gilded Age was the best time in American History.

Government is force. It is someone or some group forcing what they think is a good idea on to everyone else. Government is usually a late comer.

Government is a late comer in the respect that it takes enough citizens raising hell before they eventually step in. Industry would have been more than happy to maintain child labor, lax to non-existent safety regulations, slave-like factory conditions, and dumping chemical waste into the local water supply if it meant maintaining their bottom line.

Fart_Machine:Government is a late comer in the respect that it takes enough citizens raising hell before they eventually step in.

Oh, they can go overboard and attack problems in ways that are not even constitutional. Overall, government serves a function, but it needs to be evaluated and scrutinized in order to keep it healthy and in check.

Garbonzo42:cubic_spleen: GoldSpider: bopis: Liberal thinking:Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.

With genuine libertarians, perhaps. The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.

If you put 10 libertarians in a room, you'd get 11 different definitions of "genuine libertarian".

Fart_Machine:leadmetal: It's funny how someone claims libertarians are hypocrites because of something government has taken a monopoly on. None of those things needs to be a government monopoly. In fact it is the limited ability of person making the charge to think about things beyond accepting the way he knows them. It's also his ignorance of history and where the things as he knows them came from originally.

Truly the Gilded Age was the best time in American History.

Government is force. It is someone or some group forcing what they think is a good idea on to everyone else. Government is usually a late comer.

Government is a late comer in the respect that it takes enough citizens raising hell before they eventually step in. Industry would have been more than happy to maintain child labor, lax to non-existent safety regulations, slave-like factory conditions, and dumping chemical waste into the local water supply if it meant maintaining their bottom line.

This idea that the past was 'libertarian' is outright bullshiat. It was a time where the wealthy exerted more overt control over the state and/or the government's utter failure in its basic advertised mission. Although not really failure because it was never designed to do anything but serve the wealthy in the first place.

You know why employers had unsafe workplaces? Because your government was in their pockets in a much more overt way, plus the biggest companies hadn't yet learned to use regulation as a weapon against upstart competition. When a worker was injured in those days your government's courts, you know the government's monopoly on dispute resolution, told the worker or his surviving family to go pound sand. It was a failure of your government to enforce basic liability. Today employers have safety standards up the wazzoo that go above and beyond government regulation. Why? Because now people have recourse. Your government has corrected that failing to a degree. What is safety regulation often used for now? A way to harass smaller companies over petty details and paperwork.

Children worked because of that was the cultural notion at the time. The idea of children not working to help support their families is rather recent. It's only about 90-100 years old compared to thousands of years of known human history. Children not working is a luxury that only the productivity that has resulted from relative freedom of last couple centuries has made possible. Now the modern extended childhood to age 21 or even beyond is another social engineering aspect that has been deliberately brought about for various reasons but is beyond the scope of this thread. On another note as government grows and takes more and more of the fruits of our labors and restricts freedom further and further we can expect child labor to return even if illegal. It will have to be for people to survive once again.

As far as dumping chemicals into the water supply I am glad you mentioned that. Under a libertarian society that is not permitted. Under your government run society those with political connections are permitted to do so. My drinking water comes from Lake Michigan. Across the border in Indiana BP is allowed by the US EPA and Indiana state government to dump their waste up to a certain amount into the lake. Into where my drinking water comes from. Why is that? Because BP has the political muscle to get that privilege. If I were to build a refinery no way in farking hell would I be allowed to dispose of waste into the lake. I would have to dispose/recycle it on my own dime. Which of course would make my refinery not competitive.

The reason pollution was out of control in the first place was because your government told the people to go pound sand. People started suing over pollution pretty early on but your government insisted that they had to prove the pollution was harmful. Under a strict libertarian property rights system these companies would be liable by default. Why? Because they were contaminating other people's property. There would be no reason to prove harm because under strict property rights they would have to contain their chemicals, their wastes, on their property or sell them or otherwise transfer the ownership of said wastes to another person or company (where the same rules would apply) That is recycle, treat, dispose of properly.

When the people revolted, government of course didn't embrace property rights, instead what it did was create a new political privilege. The political privilege BP's refinery on the lake shore benefits from to this day.

Ever notice that countries that had no libertarian aspect to their history lagged in these areas or are still completely screwed up to this day? Find a country where the government has always had complete power and there you will find a lack of any sort of building codes, children working in sweat shops, and pollution galore. China for instance. Very powerful government able to force anyone to do anything and look at it. Condo high rises toppling over, pollution everywhere. The goods that western statists attribute to government did not come from government at all. Government doesn't give a fark about you or me. That's why everything worth having comes out of voluntary society, from the people themselves. The best situation for government and those who influence/control it is a mass of poor people barely able to get by and/or dependent upon government, and that's where government will take us if it is allowed to.

Me too. I think that most folks will be fine (on both sides of the political fence) if we could frame more of our political discussions in this context. unfortunately, much of the maneuvering is all about attack and defend and the true point gets muddled.

BMFPitt:ciberido: No. And your troll-fu is weak. You want to concern-troll, learn to do it better.

So I'll add "concern troll" to the list of terms you don't seem to understand.

I think I understand the term well, enough but I grant that I'm using the term based on an assumption about your motives that could be wrong. I assumed you were a troll because your motive seemed to be wasting my time. Maybe you're not a troll. Maybe you're completely, totally sincere, and you're just all butthurt because the big mean liberal said some harsh things about Libertarians. In which case, son, grow up. This is Fark, it's a little rough-and-tumble here. If, on the other hand, your little hissy fit is an act, then you're not just a troll, but a boring one. If you have to troll, at least try to entertain someone other than yourself.

In either case, it's clear you're never going to answer the questions I asked, so fark off. For what it's worth, you had your chance to convince me Libertarianism wasn't something I should sneer at, and you pissed it away. Maybe that was your goal all along, maybe not, whatever. Go waste someone else's time.

leadmetal:This idea that the past was 'libertarian' is outright bullshiat. It was a time where the wealthy exerted more overt control over the state and/or the government's utter failure in its basic advertised mission. Although not really failure because it was never designed to do anything but serve the wealthy in the first place.

In the Libertarian Utopia the government has no role in preventing the wealthy from using their influence to exploit others. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

leadmetal:You know why employers had unsafe workplaces? Because your government was in their pockets in a much more overt way, plus the biggest companies hadn't yet learned to use regulation as a weapon against upstart competition. When a worker was injured in those days your government's courts, you know the government's monopoly on dispute resolution, told the worker or his surviving family to go pound sand. It was a failure of your government to enforce basic liability.

They had unsafe workplaces because it was far cheaper to operate and the fact that there were no regulations in place for them to do otherwise. The legal system cost money just as it does now. The idea that workers making slave wages in factories somehow would be able to afford the costs in a corporate court of law is laughably absurd.

leadmetal:Children worked because of that was the cultural notion at the time.

It wasn't just a "cultural notion"; it was a necessity. Poor families couldn't survive without every member working. It wasn't the dream of every parent to have their children risk death and dismemberment by working in factories or cleaning out chimneys.

leadmetal:As far as dumping chemicals into the water supply I am glad you mentioned that. Under a libertarian society that is not permitted.

LOL! Without a mechanism of enforcement then you've got nothing. I love the naive notion that industries are all moral paragons who would never cut corners and operate as responsible citizens. They only do bad things because they were coerced by Big Bad Government.

leadmetal:People started suing over pollution pretty early on but your government insisted that they had to prove the pollution was harmful. Under a strict libertarian property rights system these companies would be liable by default. Why? Because they were contaminating other people's property.

Um, contamination requires proof that the pollution was harmful as well.

leadmetal:Ever notice that countries that had no libertarian aspect to their history lagged in these areas or are still completely screwed up to this day? Find a country where the government has always had complete power and there you will find a lack of any sort of building codes, children working in sweat shops, and pollution galore. China for instance. Very powerful government able to force anyone to do anything and look at it.

Nobody is advocating for a totalitarian state. But if you want to look at countries with far fewer regulations try Mexico, Bangladesh, or India. Truly we need to strive for their standards of living.

ciberido:Maybe you're not a troll. Maybe you're completely, totally sincere, and you're just all butthurt because the big mean liberal said some harsh things about Libertarians. In which case, son, grow up. This is Fark, it's a little rough-and-tumble here. If, on the other hand, your little hissy fit is an act, then you're not just a troll, but a boring one. If you have to troll, at least try to entertain someone other than yourself.

Well if you see my attempt to explain why your question was like asking someone who goes to church on Christmas and Easter why a fundamentalist Christian theocracy would be good for gay people as butthurt, then you must be pretty desperate to believe you have caused butthurt. Sorry kid, at best you made me sigh.

In either case, it's clear you're never going to answer the questions I asked, so fark off. For what it's worth, you had your chance to convince me Libertarianism wasn't something I should sneer at, and you pissed it away. Maybe that was your goal all along, maybe not, whatever. Go waste someone else's time.

And just like talking to truthers, birthers, creationists, etc, I knew the odds of cracking your derp shield were pretty long.

Fart_Machine:In the Libertarian Utopia the government has no role in preventing the wealthy from using their influence to exploit others. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

A libertarian system does permit a government that the wealthy can control and influence for their own benefit. Governments, like the US federal government, are established by the wealthy for their own purposes in controlling and exploiting the people. They will create as much tyranny as the people will permit. You are trying to project the statist system on to libertarians. This is typical of farkers and I am rather sick of it.

Fart_Machine:They had unsafe workplaces because it was far cheaper to operate and the fact that there were no regulations in place for them to do otherwise. The legal system cost money just as it does now. The idea that workers making slave wages in factories somehow would be able to afford the costs in a corporate court of law is laughably absurd.

The legal system is expensive because it is a government monopoly. The wealthy want it that way intentionally. Again, stop blaming libertarianism for the failings of your statist system. Even if a worker had money to fight in those days, and many did fight, on their own dime or through donations or private charitable organizations and so forth they lost. Why? Your government sided with the companies. No liability. They considered it assumed risk by the employee. This is basic history for anyone who's looked into it. You're just reciting state myths. I was taught the same bullshiat in government school too. State myths are to make the government look good. But its not reality.

Fart_Machine:It wasn't just a "cultural notion"; it was a necessity. Poor families couldn't survive without every member working. It wasn't the dream of every parent to have their children risk death and dismemberment by working in factories or cleaning out chimneys.

Read what I wrote again. Read the part about children not working being a recent luxury due to the increase in productivity that resulted from the relative freedom of the last couple centuries. The fact of the matter is you are once again blaming the wide spread poverty that centuries of statism created that libertarian freedoms solved, on libertarianism. Keep growing the state and you'll see the children forced to work once again because of the impoverishment that brings.

Fart_Machine:Um, contamination requires proof that the pollution was harmful as well.

Under strict property rights you can't dump anything on my property. You can't have anything that resulted from your activities go on to my property. That's what property rights are. If you understood libertarianism you would at least understand basics of it like property rights. The issue of pollution in libertarianism is derived from the basics. Libertarianism works like physics or engineering. The positions on any given topic are derived from basic principles. It's not like democrats or republicans who pick what feels good to them, what their emotions say or what's best for themselves. This is why libertarianism is 'weird'. It's a political philosophy that is logically derived from basic principles. On pollution it comes from the principles of property rights. You have no right to so much as dump a bucket of clean water on my property. The harm is the cost to remove whatever of yours got on my property. To restore it to the state it was in before you contaminated it.

Fart_Machine:Nobody is advocating for a totalitarian state. But if you want to look at countries with far fewer regulations try Mexico, Bangladesh, or India. Truly we need to strive for their standards of living.

The governments ruling those places are more openly corrupt and more overtly controlled by those who benefit by exploiting the people. The USA has lots of regulation yet refinery waste is still being dumped in the source of my drinking water. Why? The amount for the 21st century USA should be ZERO. In fact it should be negative. The water returned to the lake should be cleaner than what was taken out. It should be reversing past pollution the way modern cars may do. There's no good reason to dump anything into the great lakes. There is absolutely no excuse for any country not to be running at least a 1980 technology level of pollution control. That's the cheap and very effective hunk. But yet it doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen is because of government power. The more powerful the government the worse the problems get. The poorer the people are. And poor people sacrifice their environment because they cannot afford not to.

I claim Libertarianism mostly because I believe that one person's (or corporation's or government's) actions should not harm another person. I know that that day will never come, but I still believe in the ideal behind it. So, I live my life that way, staying out of other people's business, staying disgusted with the feds on a daily basis, and rolling my eyes at the shenanigans put forth by the left and the right.

That doesn't make me elitist...just depressed. Let gays marry, let gun nuts buy guns, let potheads smoke reefer, etc etc. I don't give a flip because none of that affects me. Selfish? Damn straight. Because I can be selfish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

As for politicians who claim to be Libertarian while running for president? BULL shiat. That's impossible, for to become president means gaining the power to kill with impunity, the power to pass laws that take away the people's rights. And if we ever have a president who doesn't abuse those powers every single day, that's the day I'll know we're in the Matrix because it's simply not possible.

GoldSpider:HighOnCraic: Unfortunately, some fairly prominent libertarians want to allow the states to recriminalize it.

Care to name names?

HighOnCraic: As for ending the war on drugs, that's great, I mean it worked in Portugal, so I guess it would work here, as long as we had the same kind of healthcare system that Portugal has in order to provide treatment.

Ending the war on drugs does not necessitate taxpayer-funded treatment programs. That's not to say it isn't a good idea though.

I was thinking of Ron Paul's "We the People Act."

Ending the War on Drugs would make drugs like cocaine and heroin cheaper and more accessible. It's not too big a leap to consider the possibility that this would increase the number of addicts. That usually gets lost in the "Legalize everything!" discussion. I'm not saying that taxpayer-funded treatment programs are the only solution, but since countries like Portugal and Holland are cited as examples of where legalization works, we should remember that it works in those countries because they have taxpayer-funded treatment programs.

Revek:Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles. Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages. All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about. Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.

At this point I realize I'm dealing with a zealot or a conspiracy loon.

leadmetal:Read what I wrote again. Read the part about children not working being a recent luxury due to the increase in productivity that resulted from the relative freedom of the last couple centuries. The fact of the matter is you are once again blaming the wide spread poverty that centuries of statism created that libertarian freedoms solved, on libertarianism. Keep growing the state and you'll see the children forced to work once again because of the impoverishment that brings.

You're forgetting the part about union representation and the demand for more pay and benefits. But yeah, we should see kids back in the factories any day now.

You just claimed it required proof of contamination and now you want to move the goalposts. In any case lakes and rivers weren't owned by anyone so it was fair game to dump into them. You can't claim a violation of property when you don't own it.

leadmetal:The governments ruling those places are more openly corrupt and more overtly controlled by those who benefit by exploiting the people. The USA has lots of regulation yet refinery waste is still being dumped in the source of my drinking water. Why? The amount for the 21st century USA should be ZERO. In fact it should be negative. The water returned to the lake should be cleaner than what was taken out. It should be reversing past pollution the way modern cars may do. There's no good reason to dump anything into the great lakes. There is absolutely no excuse for any country not to be running at least a 1980 technology level of pollution control. That's the cheap and very effective hunk. But yet it doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen is because of government power.

Yup, it's the government that's lobbying to prevent increased regulations on drinking water and air pollution. Just like vehicle emission standards weren't opposed tooth and nail by the auto industry.

leadmetal:Libertarianism works like physics or engineering. The positions on any given topic are derived from basic principles. It's not like democrats or republicans who pick what feels good to them, what their emotions say or what's best for themselves. This is why libertarianism is 'weird'. It's a political philosophy that is logically derived from basic principles.

That would certainly explain why there is only one type of libertarian. Oh wait...

ciberido:GoldSpider:If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

PsiChick:Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.

Lawyers With Nukes: - if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival

In theory I agree with you, but anyone reading your posts, or, for that matter, listening to any Libertarian, should be aware that "force" in Libertarian-ese is a term of art. It does not mean what most people think of when they hear the word "force." When used in Libertarian-ese, it pretty much means "anything Libertarians don't like."

Lawyers With Nukes: - contracts made under coercion are invalid

In principle, yes, though again I suspect you have a rather quirky definition of "under coercion" in mind. If you mean, "someone literally held a knife to my throat and swore he'd kill me if I didn't sign," sure.

Lawyers With Nukes: - you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors

Not as such, no. But see the next point.

Lawyers With Nukes: - refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

Here's where it all falls down. By living in a country, you DO implicitly agree to play by the rules of that country. Joining a society is not strictly a matter of opting in. When you're born into a society, you're part of it, like it or not, until such time as you leave it. Here are your only three options:

1. You can obey the rules of the society you're in, even the parts you don't like (such as paying taxes).2. You can leave the society (but that will probably involve physically moving to a location outside the society).3. You can break the rules and accept the consequences, be they fines, imprisonment, or whatever.

Fart_Machine:leadmetal: A libertarian system does permit a government that the wealthy can control and influence for their own benefit.

No, it just takes out the middle man so they can control it directly.

leadmetal: The legal system is expensive because it is a government monopoly.

Well no, it's expensive because to get the best legal representation you need money. Lawyers can ask for whatever the market will demand.

leadmetal: I was taught the same bullshiat in government school too.

At this point I realize I'm dealing with a zealot or a conspiracy loon.

leadmetal: Read what I wrote again. Read the part about children not working being a recent luxury due to the increase in productivity that resulted from the relative freedom of the last couple centuries. The fact of the matter is you are once again blaming the wide spread poverty that centuries of statism created that libertarian freedoms solved, on libertarianism. Keep growing the state and you'll see the children forced to work once again because of the impoverishment that brings.

You're forgetting the part about union representation and the demand for more pay and benefits. But yeah, we should see kids back in the factories any day now.

You just claimed it required proof of contamination and now you want to move the goalposts. In any case lakes and rivers weren't owned by anyone so it was fair game to dump into them. You can't claim a violation of property when you don't own it.

leadmetal: The governments ruling those places are more openly corrupt and more overtly controlled by those who benefit by exploiting the people. The USA has lots of regulation yet refinery waste is still being dumped in the source of my drinking water. Why? The amount for the 21st century USA should be ZERO. In fact it should be negative. The water returned to the lake should be cleaner than what was taken out. It should be reversing past pollution the way modern cars may do. There's no good reason to dump anything into the great lakes. There is absolutely no excuse for any country not to be running at least a 1980 technology level of pollution control. That's the cheap and very effective hunk. But yet it doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen is because of government power.

Yup, it's the government that's lobbying to prevent increased regulations on drinking water and air pollution. Just like vehicle emission standards weren't opposed tooth and nail by the auto industry.

/facepalm

One point: I though bodies of water may not be anyone's property, they abut property and deposit onto it that which is put into them. If you are dumping something into a body of water you are also dumping that something onto the property of anyone whose property it lands on. Nobody owns the air, but if you throw waste into the air and it lands on someone else's property you are dumping waste onto their property regardless of whether you put it directly, by hand, onto their soil. It seems to me the same principle should apply to throwing that waste into water as into the atmosphere. The cost of retrieving that which you dump should be yours.

Well Armed Sheep:One point: I though bodies of water may not be anyone's property, they abut property and deposit onto it that which is put into them. If you are dumping something into a body of water you are also dumping that something onto the property of anyone whose property it lands on. Nobody owns the air, but if you throw waste into the air and it lands on someone else's property you are dumping waste onto their property regardless of whether you put it directly, by hand, onto their soil. It seems to me the same principle should apply to throwing that waste into water as into the atmosphere. The cost of retrieving that which you dump should be yours.

Just saying, that argument doesn't smell right to me.

Yes you are. On the other hand unless you have the resources to challenge the business in court the point is largely moot. What Libertarians say to compensate for this is that we encourage everything to be privately owned. So if I buy up the land and pollute it or pay the guy off who owns the water supply then it's none of your business. And if you want to make it your business then the Libertarian option apparently is corporate arbitration (we don't want that government monopoly on the legal system now) which seldom works out in your favor anyway.

I love how libertarians claim to be all about freedom for everyone, despite the fact that old school libertarians like Barry Goldwater (in his chapter on Civil Rights in "The Conscience of a Conservative") and William F. Buckley* (in numerous editorials in the Nationalist Review, including "Why the South Must Prevail") argued that the Federal government had no right to get involved with spreading freedom and democracy to blah Southerners, and they both approved of using American tax dollars (collected by force, of course) to spread freedom and democracy in Soviet-controlled nations, even if it meant funding anti-Soviet propaganda in foreign countries (while remaining silent on Mississippi's law against publishing anti-segregation material) or using tactical nuclear strikes. But I'm sure that someone will claim that Goldwater and Buckley were no true libertarians, because they don't like haggis, or something.

*To be fair, Buckley admitted that he was wrong, and that Federal power was necessary to end segregation. If only other libertarians could admit that at least on that particular issue, the Federal government was more pro-freedom than local governments. . .

Revek:Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles. Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages. All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about. Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.

Voiceofreason01:Kome: My individual experiences are sufficient to formulate policies that should be in place to dictate to a country of 320,000,000 other people what they should expect from their government.

my individual experience is that libertarians are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

leadmetal:ghettodwarf: The ones that set up a financial system that was bound to fail, simply so they could bet against it and profit greatly from the screwing of the middle and lower classes.

So you're upset that the wealthy elite control government and using that control of government ended up controlling the money? Go government, keeping the serfs and slaves in their place for the last six thousand years.

If you admit that the wealthy elite control the government, why would you blame government for "keeping the serfs and slaves in their place", and not those who actually control it...seems like you're blaming the gun, not the shooter.

What if government was not about getting fat checks from lobbyists and keeping your position for as long as possible. What if it was about setting a solid foundation on which as many citizens as possible have an opportunity at health and happiness. What if they said "I don't give a shiat about what you choose to do with or to your own body, as long as you aren't hurting others AND no, you can't screw over thousands of people to get richer. That seems somewhat libertarian to me...but I don't hear a lot of libertarians saying that, I mostly hear "Taxes! GUBMENT! SLAVERY!" and the sound of middle class white people fapping onto page 69 of Atlas Shrugged.

ciberido:Lawyers With Nukes: UndeadPoetsSociety: Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?

They say that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

But it is civil to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something they consider morally reprehensible?

If you should withhold that portion of your taxes that goes to our continual campaigns of mass murder, in what way will things start to become uncivil? Armed agents pointing their shotguns at you and your family, demanding payment...that's how.

Taken this way, taxes are "the price of civility" in more ways than one.

If you do not pay your taxes, you are a thief. You have stolen from your fellow citizens. It is entirely right and proper that police should use force to apprehend thieves and see that they are punished from their crimes. Using force to apprehend and punish criminals is absolutely part of a civil society.

No matter how "morally reprehensible" you think taxes are, you broke the law, you are a criminal, and yes I DO hope that big, burly men with big-ass shotguns arrest your skeeving, criminal ass and haul you away in handcuffs. Ideally it should be a quiet arrest without the need to draw guns, but if you or any member of your family resist arrest or otherwise try to interfere, then they get to do whatever is necessary to put down such resistance, up to burning your house down and driving over the flaming rubble in radioactive tanks. Repeatedly.

And I will applaud them and buy them doughnuts for doing their job.

Now, if you truly believe that you were standing up for your rights by committing an act of civil disobedience, then live up to it by accepting your arrest, pleading guilty in court and taking your prison sentence with dignity like a true activist. Follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, jr, and others by writing letters from jail.

/You could also try a slightly more low-key approach by, say, vot ...

Or another option: disagree with the laws but still abide by them. I pay my taxes, and throw a little extra on top just in case. It drives my CPA nuts, but when your dealing with armed sadists that love to do their job, you can't be too careful.

Thanks for the offer, but I have no desire to drink that hemlock. Free speech is still legal, so I'll just stick around, ask my annoying questions, and do my best to "corrupt the youth of Athens."

ciberido: GoldSpider:If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

PsiChick:Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.

Lawyers With Nukes: - if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival

In theory I agree with you, but anyone reading your posts, or, for that matter, listening to any Libertarian, should be aware that "force" in Libertarian-ese is a term of art. It does not mean what most people think of when they hear the word "force." When used in Libertarian-ese, it pretty much means "anything Libertarians don't like."

Laptop battery dying, so I'll make this brief, no time for foreplay...For our purposes here, lets just use the traditional, commonly understood meaning of force: assault and/or battery. My point still stands.

Lawyers With Nukes: - contracts made under coercion are invalid

In principle, yes, though again I suspect you have a rather quirky definition of "under coercion" in mind. If you mean, "someone literally held a knife to my throat and swore he'd kill me if I didn't sign," sure.

Wrong. Contracts are invalid when there is any coercion involved. Period. This includes physical assault or battery, threats, intimidation, harrasment, and the like. You really need to look this up. Google up "contract law duress". My point stands.

Lawyers With Nukes: - you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors

Not as such, no. But see the next point.

Lawyers With Nukes: - refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

Here's where it all falls down. By living in a country, you DO implicitly agree to play by the rules of that country. Joining a society is not strictly a matter of opting in. When you're born into a society, you're part of it, like it or not, until such time as you leave it. Here are your only three options:

1. You can obey the rules of the society you're in, even the parts you don't like (such as paying taxes).2. You can leave the society (but that will probably involve physically moving to a location outside the society).3. You can break the rules and accept the consequences, be they fines, imprisonment, or whatever.

I'm sorry (well, no, honestly, I'm not), but there IS no ...

I'll make this real simple, I don't have to win this point because I won the others. Remember I have to prove only one of my points to invalidate the social contract. But what the hell, here goes:

1) Your presence on the earth is involuntary (nobody chooses to be born)2) By being present on the earth, you implicitly agree with with social contract.3) Therefore, you involuntarily agree with the contract.

Which is of course oxymoronic gibberish. You cannot involuntarily agree or consent, it's a contradition in terms. I suggest you rethink your stance.

Lawyers With Nukes:2) By being present on the earth, you implicitly agree with with social contract.

It isn't a"legal contract".

You grew up with the roads, schools, social stability, etc. You can't take that then turn around and say, fark you I am not going to pay for anything I don't like...well you can say that and people will call you out for the selfish shortsighted idiot you are.

Lawyers With Nukes:I'll make this real simple, I don't have to win this point because I won the others.

No, you'll make it real simple because simplistic ideologies are all you understand. I seriously doubt that anything I say will convince you otherwise, but just for the record, here's the flaw in your reasoning:

Lawyers With Nukes: 1) Your presence on the earth is involuntary (nobody chooses to be born)

You're wrong in two ways: first, the Earth isn't a single society. If you don't like the USA, move to Canada, or China, or Somalia, or any other place that'll take your worthless carcass. (I'll assume you're an American citizen living in the USA, but it really doesn't matter.) You CHOOSE to be here, because you could be somewhere else. Sitting on your ass and staying here is a CHOICE to be here, like it or not. You can say "No, it is!" until you'll blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong every time.

Second, even if the world WERE a single society, and there was no other way to end membership than to die, then you could commit suicide. There's your choice. And frankly, nobody would miss you very much.

You can fantasize and mouth off about all that you've "won" to your little heart's content. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether you understand or agree with the rules. You just have to follow them. You say you "disagree with the laws but still abide by them," and that's fine. In the end, we don't need you to understand OR agree with them (though it would be nice if you did), just abide by them and we'll do fine.

But for what it's worth, you are EXACTLY why people dislike Libertarianism. I can't really speak for anyone else, but every post you've made has made me like Libertarianism less, and I can only imagine it's had the same effect of most of the people in this thread.